G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891. July 28, 2005
Re: Anonymous Complaint Against Judge Edmundo T. Acuña, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, Branch 123

FACTS

An anonymous complaint was filed against Judge Edmundo T. Acuña alleging several improprieties. The primary allegation was that he conducted trials, signed orders, and promulgated sentences while on an approved official leave from August 15 to September 15, 2001. Specific criminal cases were cited. The complainants also accused him of using vulgar and unprofessional language in court, such as “Putang Ina,” and of berating people, exhibiting weird behavior, and being indecisive in drafting decisions.
In his comment, Judge Acuña denied most allegations as fabricated or exaggerated. Regarding the leave, he admitted working on August 21, 2001, but explained his travel was delayed and he had not yet commenced his leave on that date. He presented an approved leave application for August 21 to September 21, 2001. He admitted using some of the cited expressions but claimed they were not used in open court. He attributed his behavior to grief over his son’s recent death.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Acuña is administratively liable for conducting judicial functions while on approved leave and for using improper language and conduct.

RULING

Yes, Judge Acuña is administratively liable for impropriety. The Court found that his approved leave of absence commenced on August 21, 2001. By presiding over cases and promulgating decisions on that very day, he exercised judicial authority when he had absolutely none, as a judge on leave is legally barred from discharging official duties. His claim of a deferred travel plan does not excuse this violation, as the leave approval was effective and he failed to secure its official amendment.
Furthermore, his admission to using vulgar expressions, even if claimed to be infrequent or not directed at individuals, constitutes improper conduct. Judges must always be temperate, patient, and courteous in language and behavior to maintain public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and dignity. While the Court sympathizes with his personal grief, such circumstances do not absolve him from the high standards of conduct required of his office.
Finding no evidence of bad faith or ill motive, but considering the clear impropriety, the Court reprimanded Judge Acuña and sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.